The court ruled that a natural guardian of Hindu minors must obtain court approval to dispose of undivided property interests, rendering the sale deed void.

JUDGMENT :

V. Gopala Krishna Rao, J.

This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 04-8-2011 in A.S.No.80 of 2007 on the file of the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada, Krishna District, in setting aside the Judgment and decree dated 24-11-2006 in O.S.No.1077 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

2. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondents 1 and 2 herein are the plaintiffs 1 and 2 in O.S.No.1077 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

3. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 initiated action in O.S.No.1077 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, with a prayer for the relief of declaration that the sale deed dated 25-6-2001 is void and is not binding on the plaintiffs and for costs of the suit.

4. The learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, dismissed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiffs 1 and 2 in the above said suit filed the aforesaid appeal suit before the first appellate Court. The learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada, allowed the first appeal with costs by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendant/appellant approached this Court by way of second appeal.

5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the second appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.

6. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.1077 of 2002, is as follows:

(a) It is pleaded that the plaintiffs are the sister and brother and their mother, by name Swarna Kumari, died on 12-8-1998 under suspicious circumstances and in that connection, there was police investigation and even post-mortem of the plaintiffs’ mother was conducted at the Government General Hospital, Guntur and in that connection, the plaintiffs’ father was taken into police custody for some time. Thereafter, to avoid unnecessary police interference, the elders of the family effected an arrangement on 19-8-1998 and thereby the plaintiffs’ father, by name Rajeswara Rao, agreed to execute an agreement to convey his 1/3^rd share in the plaint schedule property, which is the joint family property of the plaintiffs and their father and accordingly, he executed an agreement of sale dated 19-8-1998 after receiving the consideration amount of Rs.40,000/- from the plaintiffs’ maternal grandfather, by name Chanumolu Janardhana Rao and the plaintiffs’ father agreed to execute and register a regular sale deed as and when demanded by the plaintiffs.

(b) It is further pleaded that the plaintiffs’ father died on 05-8-2001 due to excessive drinking and during his life time, the defendant obtained a sale deed from him on 25-6-2001 in respect of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property while the plaintiffs’ father was in an intoxicated state of mind and as such, he never knew the nature of the document and as such, he signed and registered the said sale deed dated 25-6-2001 in favour of the defendant and as such, it is void and not binding on the plaintiffs.

(c) It is further pleaded that as the sale deed dated 25-6-2001 is subsequent to the agreement of sale, dated 19-8-1998, the sale deed is void on that ground also and does not bind the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs even got issued a legal notice to the defendant but of no avail. Hence, the plaintiffs are constrained to file the suit for the relief of declaration that the sale deed in favour of the defendant is void and not